Okay /g/. I'm not here to argue whether or not FLAC is a placebo, but how can you tell if your FLAC files haven't just been converted from a lossy format before they were uploaded to whatever site you got them from?
Use Spectro or a similar program to see what frequencies are present.
>>55397374
Thank you so much, anon
check out the graphs in audacity or use SoX it's not hard to spot a transcode.
>>55397346
>>55397346
>falling for the flac meme
>>55397420
>have to use graphics to figure out whether sound is optimal
>>55397346
>You can't tell the difference without having to resort to tools to tell you
>Literally no point in you using FLAC
>>55397374
Early cds can have quite a bit of a dropoff in the higher frequencies. Like 60's rock albums that were released on cd in the 80's.
More recent remasters are better.
>>55399085
Its collectionist autism.
I downloaded Best of Neil Young flac.
Burned a cd and it sounded like crap on my stereo.
Checked the files with spek and there was a very hard ceiling in the waveforms.
So I guess I can tell by listening. Fuck you.
>>55397671
mp3 should die already
it's bloated and deprecated
>>55397671
But can you even tell difference?
Im pretty sure you cant
>>55399229
Come back when you can attach album covers to flac.
>>55399338
foobar has no problem
>>55399338
For what purpose? you're supposed to use flac as archival.
On the other hand i can attach album covers to Opus.
MP3 is shit.
>>55399362
aac is better
Its supported on almost every device, even the psp can play them. And its the same quality as opus.
>B-BUT ITS PROPRIETARY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QL2yUonqz5s
>>55399229
I think MP3 VBR sounds great. Unless your audio is subject for further editing, MP3 VBR is the best solution.
>>55399333
See above. Also, I'm not advocating for lossless. That picture I used some time ago to state that MP3 VBR is better than CBR.
>>55397671
I know this isn't the stupid questions thread but, what exactly am I supposed to see here?
>>55399480
that's actually a bit harder to read for the colors, but mp3 has a cut off at some point, usually 20 kHz
but those 2 copies from FLAC are good, that's why they look similar
>>55399333
>his audio is not 96kHz 24bit
hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
>>55399411
>I think MP3 VBR sounds great
same transparency as opus with double file size for no reason
it adds up if you have plenty of mp3s in the long run
>>55399611
Be serious. I want compatibility.
On a related note.
Is it possible to tell if my mp3 file was ripped at a lower bitrate then converted to 320 kbps?
>>55399745
It's compatible in Windows, Linux, Android and Rockboxed PMPs like the Clip+. Dunno about iDevices but it probably is.
what else do you use
>>55399750
I can get 192kbps better than that, so yes.
>>55399766
And you can say the same about webp. I don't see you using it instead of jpeg and png. Feel free to prove me wrong, the same for opus vs mp3.
Just download all your music from what.cd and you can be assured some autistic person has verified it is bit perfect.
I'm not a fan of the elitist nature of that websites users but I sure do appreciate their OCD level of attention to detail.
On the topic of downloading flac - why the hell not? I mean hdd space is cheap so what reason is there not to do this?
And like just because I can't tell the difference between a authentic Picasso and a fake doesn't mean I don't want the real one if money isn't a issue.
>>55397346
Because I only convert CDs I've legally bought, you filthy pirate
>>55399551
https://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
tl;dr anything more than 44.1/16 is bloat
>>55397671
Threadly reminder
>>55399338
what is front.jpg
>>55399362
>Opus.
>using a codec designed for voip for music
>>55397346
not sure
holy shit so many of you dont know shit
i would say its alarming but i should be desensitized to it by now. i just cant prevent being surprised every time. this is /g/, please learn some things for fucks sake
>>55402234
it has lower latency AND better quality than other codecs.
are you and 0.4fag the same guy?
>>55401940
not just bloat, it's actually harmful
>>55399766
>tfw got a new DLNA device
>nice, gonna play all my ogg files from my phone
>none of they work
>>55399396
>same quality as opus
nice meme
>>55399551
faggot, you listen with your ears, not with your eyes. unless your software or hardware is fucked up, there's no way that you can hear anything over 22.05kHz (or 20kHz, at least in music. sine waves with only one frequency don't mean shit, because the high frequency sound will be drowned out by everything else in music)
>>55397346
>>55397374
If you need a spectrogram to tell between a lossy and lossless file, then you're better off saving the space and just going with lossy compression.
Most people can't even notice the subtle little tinglies that FLAC preserves. MP3 V0 is pretty much good enough.
FLAC is literally only useful for archival purposes and creating a 1:1 copy of the music. If you are interested in creating a digital library for archival purposes, sure use it, but for listening just use V0 or 320.
>>55402500
The only way to prove Opus is superior than other codecs is to post the results of double blind abx testing. There was a public test on hydrogenaudio that showed it performed best at 96kbps.
At higher bitrates for music in the 192kbps+ range, all of the major lossy codecs (LAME MP3, Ogg Vorbis, AAC) perform very similarly
>>55403286
>320
>implying most of the tards ITT can even hear a difference above 192
